Shelter’s Income and expenditure figures highlighted13:57 PM, 4th February 2019
About 2 weeks ago 35
I in conjunction with Property 118 have been instrumental in exposing the flaws in this rotten licensing scheme. The RLA have stated that Liverpool made amendments because of their representations. The reality is that the Data breaches and non conformity with the de regulation act were first flagged up by myself in conjunction with Property118.
Every Liverpool landlord now needs to confront the Authority with respect to this sham scheme and to that end I will now outline the form of the latest representations made by me to Liverpool council today. They must respond within 21 days or the complaint will be passed to the ICO. The drafting of these conditions cannot be described as a serious legal procedure.
The defects are as follows:
1/Liverpool condition 2.2.
The authority are demanding copies of written terms ie the tenancy. The tenancy agreement with rent payable is a confidential document creating a contract between landlord and tenant. The tenant quite rightly may object to the interfering council having these details. Furthermore the tenants name etc will already be known to the council through Council Tax records. This demand is both an infringement of ECHR article 8 and a breach of the DPA third principle.
2/Anti Social condition (a).
It is not in the landlords gift to provide copies of letters received re anti social behaviour to the council. Such letters may well have been sent by neighbours who do not wish their details to be disclosed to anybody for obvious reasons. Is a landlord to join in the Councils Data breaching scheme by releasing this information without the permission of the author of such correspondence.
3/General conditions (c).
The Council are demanding that landlords in effect spy on tenants by supplying names of new occupiers and rooms they occupy. The landlord may not be aware that the tenant has a visitor from Australia visiting and sleeping in the spare room. Furthermore the visitor and indeed the tenant may refuse permission for the landlord to pass on the visitors name. This condition is a flagrant breach of the DPA AND ECHR and for the council to demand that a landlord supplies this within 7 days or face criminal prosecution is madness personified.
Taken together with the previous data breaches ,this scheme is unfair, unworkable, illegal and a perfect illustration of how not to implement a licensing scheme.
Meanwhile almost one and a half years after registering thousands of us still have not received licenses.
SCRAP THIS FARCE NOW.
Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.
Our mission is to facilitate the sharing of best practice amongst UK landlords, tenants and letting agentsLearn More